Iowa governor says it's 'not sustainable' to give $40 per month to kids from low-income families for food
Iowa governor says it's 'not sustainable' to give $40 per month to kids from low-income families for food
The state told the Agriculture Department that it won't participate in the federal Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children program.
Iowa will not participate this summer in a federal program that gives $40 per month to each child in a low-income family to help with food costs while school is out, state officials have announced.
The state has notified the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it will not participate in the 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children — or Summer EBT — program, the state’s Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education said in a Friday news release.
“Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic,” Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in the news release.
She says it costs $2.2 million to feed them kids, with the federal government covering the other $2.2 million.
Let's set aside that Iowa has an FY24 spending budget of $8.5 billion, out of which $2.2 million is basically nothing....
Rather, let's make this a 🅲🆄🅻🆃🆄🆁🅴 🆆🅰🆁 🅸🆂🆂🆄🅴! Parental rights, right? That thing where parents can uncritically direct "the care, custody, and control of their minor children." It sanctifies the views of parents, elevating them over government intrusion. If a federal program provides $40 a month to each child in a low-income family to help with food costs via an EBT card, then, presumably, those parents are making the best choices for their children.
Right?
Not so! says Kim Reynolds. Low-income families are too stupid, she implies, not to give their kids nutritious foods when childhood obesity has become an epidemic. By not participating the federal program then, Reynolds is ostensibly protecting children. But really, her non-participation undermines sanctified parental choices in Iowa to provide for their kids.
And who is she to supersede parental rights? A Republican governor.
She added, “If the Biden Administration and Congress want to make a real commitment to family well-being, they should invest in already existing programs and infrastructure at the state level and give us the flexibility to tailor them to our state’s needs.”
In the same speech she talks about how kids don't need money for food and conflates issues of hunger and obesity. I do not trust your "states rights" bs to actually feed children. That money will absolutely go into a donors pocket of not strictly allocated (which is exactly why they don't want to be told how to spend it).
We just want to make sure that they’re out. They’re at church camps. They’re at schools. They’re at 4-H. And we’ll take care of them at all of the places that they’re at, so that they’re out amongst (other people) and not feeding a welfare system with food at home,” Pillen said.
Nebraskan gov is a piece of shit too. Only wants to help the children if they get sent to indoctrination camps. Fucking trash. They're not even pretending to be human.
I wish the media wouldn't give politicians that say 'x costs too much' a free pass. Often, not doing x can cost more than doing it and rhetorically hiding behind 'it costs something' leaves the reader to assume it's reasonable to not do x because of cost.
For example, it costs something to put a homeless person in an apartment and give them time with a social worker- and the alternative to doing that (which involves paying cops to move them around and destroy their stuff, to investigate the crimes homeless people are perpetrators and victims of, to process them in and out of local emergency rooms, etc) costs substantially more than putting them in housing.
If feeding kids at a rate of $40/month is too expensive, what is the cost of not feeding them? (There's the expenses of being sick, of acting out and involving disciplinary action or just taking class time, and let's not forget that opportunity cost from not developing kids to their potential if they aren't getting proper nutrition) It's well-understood that nutritional poverty involves foregoing brain development to a child's full potential, and that in turn costs society whatever capacity that kid doesn't get to fulfill as a consequence. Not feeding kids is a way to keep your country under-performing and given the GOP's politics I honestly think they need that in their voters.
Oh but it's sustainable to give billionaires and corporations tax cuts? It's sustainable to own multiple million dollar plus homes? Allowing private jets is sustainable? An entire economy devoted to weapons manufacturing in a country of starving, struggling workers is sustainable?
These fucking boomers never progressed beyond their teenage years. I can't help but see our leadership as highschool students that need to grow the fuck up, abandon their awful, failed special interest policies, and start doing their fucking job; which is providing the average person with the means to live a fulfilled life. Every. Single. Politician. Is an abject failure that should have been cast to the wolves decades ago.
Fuck her. What an absolute joke. I know I'm not adding anything of value to this conversation, but I'm just so mad.
This is an argument that is used all the time in politics and business when a (partial) solution to a big problem is presented.
"Well there may be unintended consequences to this solution so we can't do anything until every single potential problem that may arise sometime in the future is completely worked through and solved."
I mean if you are going into space then that is probably the way to do things but trying to solve childhood hunger? Yea you got time to fix the problems as they arise.
Republicans only understand the politics of cruelty these days.
paying a salary to the Iowa governor is not sustainable.
Okay, how about UBI, then? That's been proven over and over to be an effective soluti—
No? Something something bootstraps? Oh, then go fuck yourself with a cactus!
Letting billionaires live is not sustainable
she simply wants to hurt poor people.
it's not a 'covid-era' thing anymore, it's a permanent program now--one paid for by the feds, who will also reimburse states for half of their expenses to distribute those funds to those eligible.. which really isn't that much seeing how that most of the recipients probably already applied-for or are receiving other benefits for low-income households.
If ever it seems like there's not enough to go around, blame the people who have too much.
But I'm sure she tried to get bezos to open Amazons corp office through massive tax breaks.
Republicans are ghouls.
Starve her
GOP say silly things non stop.
if you're a Conservative, little kids just don't work hard enough to deserve food
Oh, but it is. It's proven in the 12th economy of the world, why one state of the first economy of the world couldn't sustain it?
Loading them up on a bunch of HFCS from those Iowa corn fields will be great for them though I'm sure...
Iowa is a barren field devoid of intellectualism so OF COURSE the election hinges on it
Another example of "once they're out of the womb, fuck 'em". Disgusting.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Iowa will not participate this summer in a federal program that gives $40 per month to each child in a low-income family to help with food costs while school is out, state officials have announced.
“Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families.
An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic,” Iowa Republican Gov.
Some state lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Izaah Knox of Des Moines, quickly voiced their opposition to the decision.
“It’s extremely disappointing that the Reynolds administration is planning to reject federal money that could put food on the table for hungry Iowa kids,” Knox said in a statement.
States, territories and eligible tribal nations have until Jan. 1 to notify the Department of Agriculture of their intent to participate in the program this summer.
The original article contains 520 words, the summary contains 149 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Sorry, kids, but after the tax cuts for the wealthy there's just no money left for you.
Quick, somebody call "Moms for Liberty" and get this fixed!
oh....
I see. Right. OK then, never mind.
What a poverty state, I’d he embarrassed if I lived in a place that had so many poors or so little money that that’s not affordable
You know what else does nothing for kids? Kim Reynolds. She’s, an arrogant, hypocritical, and ignorant douche baby.
Yeah, okay and just what are these supposed "long term solutions then you evil cunt? I'm sure she's spent every day in office trying really hard to tackle the problems of childhood obesity and low income families looking for this long term solution. Get wrecked you shithead
Her fucking salary and expenses are not sustainable.
Permanently Deleted
Too bad those kids aren't Fetuses. Then Republicans might actually CARE about them!
cue up sound bite in 6 months of her blaming federal democrats for not providing for hungry kids
Beau of the fifth column made an excellent video on this
It actually is extremely sustainable to provide stimulus to your economy that is 100% matched by the federal government. Her problem is that it helps the poor.
She even looks evil.
If that’s not sustainable for Iowa then Iowa shouldn’t exist.
What a dumb slut.
Why is that your stance, Governor? Are there a lot of food-insecure children from low income families in your state?